Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

[evillawyer]

Yes you are completely wrong on the math. The problem statement DO set forth calculates just as I have shown. The probability calculation as he set it up is correct. And pardon me for pointing out the CDC is FOS anyway and I’m not inclined to listen to any of their damn diatribes at the moment.

if you want to tell DO is initial ratios are wrong then tell him. But the math problem he outlined is correct. Go sleep it off

The only math I did was to take the US population (~340 million), use the probability figure given (1 in 51 million chance of a person getting infected if they're vaccinated), and conclude that we'd expect to see no more than a few breakthrough infections. That's the only math I did. Tell me where that math went wrong. You can't, asshat.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The only math I did was to take the US population (~340 million), use the probability figure given (1 in 51 million chance of a person getting infected if they're vaccinated), and conclude that we'd expect to see no more than a few breakthrough infections. That's the only math I did. Tell me where that math went wrong. You can't, asshat.

I have told you where it was wrong as demonstrated in the combined random chance DO set forth.

You came back with a dumb example using a single random variable and stupidly presented it as equivalent to the combined probability of three independent variables which is what DO has in his problem statement.

No wonder you trust the “science” you wouldn’t know it if it bit you on your shrew ass

Edit: the more you know. In DO’s exapmple all three random variables are joined by AND. womp womp.

In need of tips/suggestions when to add or multiply probabilities

 

[evillawyer]

I have told you where it was wrong as demonstrated in the combined random chance DO set forth.

You came back with a dumb example using a single random variable and stupidly presented it as equivalent to the combined probability of three independent variables which is what DO has in his problem statement.

No wonder you trust the “science” you wouldn’t know it if it bit you on your shrew ass

True or false: The conclusion of DO's post was there's a 1 in 51 million chance of a vaccinated person getting covid?

 

[NorthDallas40]

True or false: The conclusion of DO's post was there's a 1 in 51 million chance of a vaccinated person getting covid?

Based on the multiplicative result of the three independent variables he set forth the correct answer is 1:51,000,000

 

[NorthDallas40]

Bingo, you finally got it. Good job

How about the dude that pissed himself just stay the hell away from the other dude, pants or no pants?

 

[LouderVol]

True or false: The conclusion of DO's post was there's a 1 in 51 million chance of a vaccinated person getting covid?

This assumes one contact with one infected person/source.

Idk about you but I interact with far more than one person a day. Further I interact with them more than 1 day a year.

Stick to arguing bs in the courts. Real life is obviously a struggle.

 

[DC_Vol]

Bingo, you finally got it. Good job

Wouldn’t a fart make a far better analogy?

 

[OL SMOKEY]

Someone getting schooled up in here

 

[allvol123]

Someone getting schooled up in here

Anything beyond a tweet and she is lost.

 

[RikidyBones]

True or false: The conclusion of DO's post was there's a 1 in 51 million chance of a vaccinated person getting covid?

You're assuming the likelihood of one interaction with one covid person is the only outcome. It can sometimes appear daunting because when you introduce multiple variables, it decreases likelihood.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You're assuming the likelihood of one interaction with one covid person is the only outcome. It can sometimes appear daunting because when you introduce multiple variables, it decreases likelihood.

And to be rigorously correct this isn’t a conditional probability problem as I stated its just basic likelihood for multiple independent variables.

Conditional probability takes the form of
IF (A) THEN (B) the likelihood is…

Regular multivariable probability is
Given A AND B AND C the likelihood is …

 

[AshG]

 

[volbeast33]

Pass….. scores too low on the hot/crazy matrix.

 

[0nelilreb]

Meh ... we made it passed the “ Scientists , Drs and Experts “ , like the ones that helped kill our first President with bloodletting ( 5 times in 8 hours ) , enemas and totally ignoring the option to use a Tracheotomy. I think we will survive “Becky” from Kalamazoo.

 

[AshG]

Meh ... we made it passed the “ Scientists , Drs and Experts “ , like the ones that helped kill our first President with bloodletting ( 5 times in 8 hours ) , enemas and totally ignoring the option to use a Tracheotomy. I think we will survive “Becky” from Kalamazoo.

I just found it funny.

 

[0nelilreb]

I just found it funny.

I always find “ experts , Drs and scientists have to be trusted “ funny also when I hear people say it .

 

[AshG]

I always find “ experts , Drs and scientists have to be trusted “ funny also when I hear people say it .

I'm in agreement.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I always find “ experts , Drs and scientists have to be trusted “ funny also when I hear people say it .

Anybody the blindly trusts the CDC at this point needs to have their damn head examined.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Anybody the blindly trusts the CDC at this point needs to have their damn head examined.

I trust them when they say what I want to hear.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I trust them when they say what I want to hear.

Honestly at this point if they are parroting what I think is right I start to question my own belief now

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Honestly at this point if they are parroting what I think is right I start to question my own belief now

What’s irked me about a lot of their positions is that they fly in the face of common sense. Like you need to wear two masks outside. Is there extensive studies that support that position? Apparently not or no one can find them. But common sense says unless you’re painting or throwing piles of sevendust around a mask outside is fairly useless. Now they tell us what we’ve been saying for a year as if it’s some revelation. They’ve also done themselves no favors by sandbagging the vaccine efficacy by saying you still need to be careful, wear a mask, avoid the unwashed, etc. If you’ve tested the product why are you still hesitant about it’s abilities? And if you haven’t tested it enough to be confident why are we getting it? They want to treat those on the fence as idiots or nutjobs but their messaging has been terrible and has undermined their own efforts.

 

[allvol123]

No matter what, you will have government to thank for covid. Not sure which government(s), well I am sure of 1, but it is government.

 

[volfanhill]

No matter what, you will have government to thank for covid. Not sure which government(s), well I am sure of 1, but it is government.

 

[VolinWayne]

Don't you have some hydroxychloriquine to go snort?

Just curious if you still think hydroxychloriquine is a joke?


Hydroxychloroquine with zinc could increase COVID-19 survival rates by as much as nearly 200% | Daily Mail Online

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Bingo, you finally got it. Good job

Yes, most people would rather take their chances either way.